Appeal No. 96-3482
Application 08/155,010
This claim stands rejected as being unpatentable over
Ballinger, which is directed to a fire protection cover for a
building. The objective of the Ballinger invention is to protect
a building from damage by an oncoming fire, and it does so by
covering the building with a cover that prevents heat and flame
from passing through. We agree with the appellants for the
reasons expressed in their Briefs that the examiner’s reliance
upon Figure 13D of Ballinger as disclosing a coarsely woven
fabric is misplaced. Moreover, there is absolutely no explicit
or implicit suggestion in Ballinger that there be a particular
ratio between the surface area of the opaque threads and the
total area of the fabric, much less that it be the 60 to 75
percent described in the appellants’ specification as being
preferred (pages 7 and 8), and recited in claim 1.
It is our opinion that the teachings of Ballinger fail to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter of claim 1, and therefore this rejection cannot be
sustained. Nor, it follows, can this rejection of dependent
claims 2 through 4 be sustained.
Dependent claims 7, 8 and 11 stand rejected under Section
103 on the basis of Ballinger in view of McQuirk. The secondary
reference is cited for its teachings regarding the storage of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007